Does Aristotle think that Barbarians are natural slaves, and if so, does he think Greeks should rule over them? Provide evidence both pro and con, and decide on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence.
Instructions
Do some research. Read the assigned reading, and read beyond the assigned reading if possible. Take a look at some of the articles and books listed below, or find your own if you think those articles listed below are not helpful.
After reading and doing your research, decide on a thesis: e.g., Aristotle thinks that non-Greeks are natural slaves, and that Greeks should rule over them.
Present Aristotle's view about who counts as a natural slave and why, and then apply the view to the question of whether he thinks that non-Greeks are natural slaves. Remember that Aristotle says many different things about slavery and that in some cases he might say contradictory or inconsistent things.
Support your view with quotations and citations from Aristotle and relevant scholarly articles. (But remember scholars often disagree). Do not quote my lectures. Consider potential contrary evidence to your view and explain why it does not refute your argument.
The best way of quoting Aristotle is to use the Bekker page number (e.g., Politics 1320b). If you can't find the Bekker page number of a passage, cite by using book and chapter number (e.g., Politics 3.5). It's not very useful to cite Aristotle by page number in whatever book you are using, since there are so many editions.
Structure your argument so as to support your thesis. Do not include irrelevant information (like, e.g., who Aristotle was) unless you are trying to use that information to make a point (e.g., Aristotle's views about slavery were characteristic of his time and place).
Your concluding sections may contain your own evaluation of Aristotle's view: e.g., you think that what Aristotle says about slavery is ridiculous because he misses X Y or Z. A conclusion need not simply repeat something you have already said, unless there is some gain in summarizing.
Always give reasons, and always consider potential objections!
If you get stuck, don't hesitate to contact the instructor.
Finley, Moses. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and Windus. Library catalog.
Explores the issue of slavery among the Greeks. Discusses Aristotle's views on natural slavery.
Ambler, Wayne. 1987. "Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery." Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 3., pp. 390-410. Link.
Smith, Nicholas D. 1983. "Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery." Phoenix, Vol. 37, No. 2., pp. 109-122. Link.
Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. "Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle's Defense of Slavery." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 1., pp. 69-94. Link.
Abstract: Many social theorists, appalled at the moral enormities made possible by the modern scientific conquest of nature, now look to a restoration of classic natural right as a standard for human affairs. But the key role of slavery in Aristotle's magisterial exposition of natural right is typically overlooked. Commentators on Aristotle's account of natural slavery add to the perplexity, charging that this account is culturally biased and logically inconsistent. Such charges play into the hands of the opponents of natural right, whose common theme is the inability of reason to overcome such biases in its search for what is right by nature. Lacking a defense of the moral and theoretical respectability of Aristotle's account of slavery, the restorationists' cause must remain unpersuasive. To provide this defense, I suggest that Aristotle's teleology implies that the natural slave, generally speaking, is made not born. Child-rearing and other cultural practices, which ordinarily promote the natural destiny of mankind, may instead subvert this telos by inculcating a dysfunctional, slavish second nature. Despotic rule may be said to be natural in such cases, and only insofar as it aids the slave in better realizing the telos proper to a human being. Aristotle quite consistently condemns all employments of the slave that are uncongenial to the reformation of slavishness and allows for emancipation in the event of this achievement.
Table of Contents
Instructions
Resources
- Finley, Moses. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and Windus. Library catalog.
Explores the issue of slavery among the Greeks. Discusses Aristotle's views on natural slavery.- Ambler, Wayne. 1987. "Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery." Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 3., pp. 390-410. Link.
- Smith, Nicholas D. 1983. "Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery." Phoenix, Vol. 37, No. 2., pp. 109-122. Link.
- Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. "Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle's Defense of Slavery." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 1., pp. 69-94. Link.
Abstract: Many social theorists, appalled at the moral enormities made possible by the modern scientific conquest of nature, now look to a restoration of classic natural right as a standard for human affairs. But the key role of slavery in Aristotle's magisterial exposition of natural right is typically overlooked. Commentators on Aristotle's account of natural slavery add to the perplexity, charging that this account is culturally biased and logically inconsistent. Such charges play into the hands of the opponents of natural right, whose common theme is the inability of reason to overcome such biases in its search for what is right by nature. Lacking a defense of the moral and theoretical respectability of Aristotle's account of slavery, the restorationists' cause must remain unpersuasive. To provide this defense, I suggest that Aristotle's teleology implies that the natural slave, generally speaking, is made not born. Child-rearing and other cultural practices, which ordinarily promote the natural destiny of mankind, may instead subvert this telos by inculcating a dysfunctional, slavish second nature. Despotic rule may be said to be natural in such cases, and only insofar as it aids the slave in better realizing the telos proper to a human being. Aristotle quite consistently condemns all employments of the slave that are uncongenial to the reformation of slavishness and allows for emancipation in the event of this achievement.